disease

Genetic testing wildly inaccurate; different labs reach opposite conclusions on disease risk

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Tags: genetic testing, disease risk, opposite conclusions

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all
U2's Bono partners with Monsanto to destroy African agriculture with GMOs
FDA targets Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps for sharing health benefits of coconut oil
Italian court rules mercury and aluminum in vaccines cause autism: US media continues total blackout of medical truth
Orthorexia Nervosa - New mental disorder aimed at people who insist on eating a clean diet
Whooping cough outbreak at Massachusetts high school affected only vaccinated students
Inuit Elders tell NASA Earth Axis Shifted
Vaccine flu shots still contain 25 micrograms mercury - 100 times the concentration of 'mercury-loaded' fish
Measles outbreak likely caused by vaccinated children, science shows
Baby formula is loaded with GMOs - Avoid these brands
Extreme trauma from male circumcision causes damage to areas of brain
Terminal stage IV lung cancer patient miraculously cured by cannabis oil
Costco stops selling antibiotic laden chicken in response to consumer demand
FDA cracks down Walmart, GNC, other companies selling supplements that do not contain the herbs on the label
McDonald's french fries found to contain Silly Putty ingredient and petroleum chemical

Delicious
(NaturalNews) If you or someone you know is considering taking a genetic test to assess future disease risk, you may be interested to know that the accuracy of such tests is hardly reliable. Writing for The New York Times (NYT), Columbia University graduate student Kira Peikoff explains how, after undergoing genetic testing using kits available from three major testing companies, her understanding of her gene-associated disease risk is even more abstract.

The reason for this is that all three tests provided different results in many major disease categories. One testing kit claimed that Peikoff has an elevated risk of developing both psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, for instance, with lifetime odds clocking in at 20.2 percent and 8.2 percent respectively. But another testing kit came to the exact opposite conclusions, reporting extremely low odds of 2 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively.

Similar results were observed for coronary heart disease, which Peikoff says runs in her family. One testing kit claimed that she has a close-to-average risk of developing an illness in this disease category -- "average" risk hovers between 26 and 29 percent -- while another testing kit revealed an "above average" risk of developing the disease. And the pattern repeated for many of the other diseases analyzed.

"At a time when the future of such companies hangs in the balance, their ability to deliver standardized results remains dubious, with far-reaching implications for consumers," writes Peikoff for NYT, referring to the fledgling genetic testing industry.

Genetic testing companies use varying criteria to assess disease risk

One reason for these major discrepancies is the fact that genetic testing companies tend to use different standards to assess disease risk, often resulting in vastly different risk prediction outcomes. Another factor is the sheer number of unique DNA segments present inside the body, segments that vary dramatically from sample to sample.

"Scientists have identified about 10 million SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) within our three billion nucleotides," explains Peikoff, noting that each of these segments provides a different lens through which disease risk can be assessed and interpreted. "But an entire genome sequencing -- looking at all three billion nucleotides -- would cost around $3,000; the tests I took examined fewer than a million SNPs."

One of Peikoff's professors, Dr. Robert Klitzman, agrees. In his view, using genetic testing kits, which only look at limited segments of human DNA, to assess disease risk in light of the entire human genome is like trying to read a book by looking only at the first letter of every other page. It would be impossible, using this analogy, to gather any sort of relevant information from the book.

"A small percentage of people who get tested will get useful information," says Dr. Klitzman. "But for most people, the results are not clinically useful, and they may be misleading or confusing."

Diet and lifestyle, not genes, the biggest factors in disease risk

Even if all those do-it-yourself genetic testing kits were capable of reading every single letter and word in the book, so to speak, there is still the issue of how much genes account for disease risk. Mainstream health authorities are quick to blame so-called genetic "defects" on the chronic disease epidemic that continues to burgeon in the U.S., but the truth of the matter is that genes account for as little as five percent of disease risk.

"Even if they are accurately looking at five percent of the attributable risk, they've ignored the vast majority of other risk factors," says Dr. Wendy Chung, an associate professor of pediatrics and medicine and director of clinical genetics at Columbia University.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.usatoday.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...

GET SHOW DETAILS
+ a FREE GIFT

Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source: Alexa.com)

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.